THE DCIT CC-35, MUMBAI v. SHRI PANKAJ M. PATEL, MUMBAI

ITSSA 85/MUM/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8519916 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABPP3812A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 85/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant THE DCIT CC-35, MUMBAI
Respondent SHRI PANKAJ M. PATEL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 28-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-05-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 22-05-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN (JM) IT(SS)A NO. 85/MUM/2007 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 11.4.2002 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-35 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. PANKAJ M. PATEL 51 BIBIJAN STREET 1 ST FLOOR MUMBAI-400 003 PAN-AABPP3812A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJIT KUMAR SINHA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DT. 15.3.2007 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-C-VI MUMBAI FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 11.4.2002. 2. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORDS. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN IT(SS)A NO. 86/MUM/2007 FOR T HE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 11.4.2002 IN THE CASE OF SMT. KOKILABEN PATEL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BOTH SIDES MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTED THAT T HE AO EVEN AT A SINGLE PLACE HAS NOT MENTIONED THAT WHAT WERE THE COMPLIANCES AND HOW THESE COMPLIANCES WERE NOT SATI SFACTORY AND THEREAFTER HE HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION BY THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN SEIZED DOCUMEN TS MERELY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 132(4) WITHOUT ANALYZING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. EVEN THOUGH IN IT(SS)A NO. 85/M/07 2 THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS REPORTED THAT TH E ADDITION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BUT WE FIND THAT ASSES SEE HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HA S EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND RECONCILED THE SA ME WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERITS. THUS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE HENCE THESE GROUND S ARE DISMISSED. 3. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF SMT. KOKILABEN PATEL (SUPRA) THEREFORE FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY 2010 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH MAY 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR C BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI IT(SS)A NO. 85/M/07 3 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 20.5.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 20. 5 .2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______